Thursday, 15 November 2012

THE BRITISH ACADEMY AND GILES FRAZER

The British Academy is the United Kingdom's national body for the humanities and the social sciences. Its purpose is to inspire, recognise and support excellence in the humanities and social sciences, throughout the UK and internationally, and to champion their role and value.

It receives an annual grant from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). In 2010-11 it had a gross income of £31,050,878, including £26,447,813 from BIS. £25,380,379 was distributed during the year in research grants, awards and charitable activities.[1]

The British Academy was established in 1902 and received its Royal Charter in the same year. It is now a fellowship of more than 900 leading scholars spanning all disciplines across the humanities and social sciences. The Academy is a self-governing and independent registered charity, based at 10-11 Carlton House Terrace in London.

It is not to be confused with the British Academy of Film and Television Arts or the Royal Academy.

"Award of prizes
The President's Medal rewards signal service to the cause of the humanities and social sciences.
The British Academy awards a total of 12 Prizes and Medals, most of them awarded annually. These include the Wiley Prize for Psychology, founded in 2009; the Peter Townsend Policy Press Prize, created in 2011; and the British Academy President’s Medal, created in 2010 and awarded to up to five recipients each year who have demonstrated “signal service to the cause of the humanities and social sciences”.

27 comments:

I ԁon't even know how I stopped up here, however I assumed this publish used to be great. I do not recognise who you might be but definitely you're gоіng tο а well-κnoωn blοggeг if you hаρpen to arеn't already. Cheers!Take a look at my webpage :: leonardo dicaprio

Thank you for any other gгeat article. Where else mаy just anуone gеt that type of information in ѕuch an ideal manner of writing? I hаve a pгеѕentation subsequent weеk, аnd I'm at the search for such information.My blog post ... finance Employment

Oh mу goodnеѕѕ! Incrediblе artісle ԁude!Thank you so muсh, Howeveг I am expеriеncing problеms wіth youг RSS. I don't understand why I am unable to join it. Is there anybody having the same RSS problems? Anyone that knows the answer can you kindly respond? Thanks!!Here is my site - degree in psychology

Hmm іt apρeaгs like уοur blog ate my first comment (it was supeг long) so I guеsѕ I'll just sum it up what I submitted and say, I'm thoroughly enjoying your blog.I too am an aspiring blog blogger but I'm still new to the whole thing. Do you have any tips for rookie blog writers? I'd definіtеly apprecіatе it.Here is my web blog : now

GF was on that R4 Moral Maze Lord McAlpine love-in on the moral code of the internet this week. Worth listening to. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01ntgw5Made me want to vomit. "real journalism.." well, you won't find the truth in the MSM. Thank heaven for the internet. GF was the least nauseous of the quintet by a long way, I hasten to say.

BTW Zoompad, thanks so much for the 2002 Select committee link. The previous page was fascinating. A very interesting trio who deserve scrutiny.

You have requested details of the people who applied for this organisation to receive charitable status, and who granted it, plus the dates.

The organisation was registered by the Charity Commission on 9 September 1994.

The entry on the register of charities is available on our website ([1]www.charitycommission.gov.uk). This provides the name and address of the current correspondent for the charity.

I am unable to provide details of the names of the individuals involved with the original application. This information is exempt under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act. This provides that information is exempt where it is personal information relating to a third party. Disclosure of this information would contravene the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998.

I am not happy with this decision. I would have replied before but struggle with PTSD on account of being a survivor of child abuse and persecution of authorities desperate to cover up the Pindown child abuse scandal.

Ralph Underwager was one of the men who set up the British False Memory Society, and he expressed strong endorsement for paedophilia in a sex magazine interview called Paidika. The BFMS has been involved in the discrediting of police institutional child abuse investigations, and lobbied Parliament to try to limit police powers to conduct investigations of abuse, therefore I think it is in the public interest to be given disclosure on who set up this charity.

A member of our Registration team will contact you within the next 15 working days.

Thank you Registration Division

From: Litigation & Review Charity Commission for England and Wales

2 March 2012

Dear Ms Richards

Review of the Commission's response to your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000

Thank you for your email which we received on 22 February 2012 in which you asked the Commission to review its decision not to supply some or all of the information you requested under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to your request.

The review will be conducted by a Commission lawyer, Louise Platt, who will consider your request for information afresh. The review will consider whether our original response was correct in the circumstances and whether there are any factors that enable us to release the information you have requested, either in full or in part. Further information about our decision review service can be found on our website using the following link:

[1]www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Library/about_us/decision_review.pdf

The section about Freedom of Information Decision Reviews can be found on page 17 onwards.

We aim to complete reviews of Freedom of Information decisions within 20 working days, unless there are exceptional circumstances. In this case, we aim to complete our review and issue a response to you by 22 March 2012. However, we will contact you again if this timescale is likely to change.

I trust you will find the attached information helpful, but if you have any questions about the review, please do contact me.

I would like to personally reassure you that Ralph Underwager did not have any part whatsoever in the setting up or running of the BFMS. As far as I know he lived and worked in America and never in the UK.

We were made aware of the statements to which you refer when they were made back in 1993 and do not condone or agree with his comments. We have a disclaimer on our website to reiterate that point. (www.bfms.org.uk)

We have not lobbied Parliament to limit police powers to conduct investigations of abuse nor had any involvement in discrediting of police institutional child abuse investigations. We acknowledge and abhor the fact that there are many genuine cases of child abuse that require the application of the criminal law.

Madeline Greenhalgh Director BFMS

Barbara Richards left an annotation (14 March 2012)

Dear Madeline Greenhalgh,

You have not personally reassured me of anything.

Ralph Underwager was certainly involved in the BFMS, and the BFMS has tried to distance itself from Ralph Underwager, since he made those disgraceful comments for that Dutch sex magazine. I can well understand why the BFMS would want to do that.

Whilst he was alive Ralph Underwager repeatedly advised his followers to be bold, and they have certainly heeded his advice.

It is dreadful for child abuse victims to have to put up with being persecuted, plotted against and called disgraceful names by devotees of False Memory Syndrome. False Memory Syndrome has to be one of the cruelest methods of psychological torture ever invented.

Members of the BFMS have certainly been lobbying Parliament to prevent the UK police from doing their duty in investigating the Pindown child abuse, and the evidence for that is in Hansard.

I prefer to wait for the charity commission to give their answer on this matter than take your response as the truth Madeline Greenhalgh.

I am writing further to my colleague Ann Marshalsea’s letter of 2 March. I am one of the Commission’s legal advisors and I am conducting a review of the Commission’s response to your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”) dated 13 January.

In carrying out this review I am considering whether several exemptions apply including exemptions such as s.40(2) (disclosure of personal information) and s.38 (health and safety) which requires that the public interest in disclosure or withholding be considered. I have not yet concluded this consideration. The Commission's Final Decision processes and FOIA oblige the Commission to respond to requests promptly and I have aimed to do this in this case and within 20 working days, however, this has not been achievable. Both our FDT process and FOIA allow the Commission to extend the timescale for making the decision by a reasonable period in order to allow proper consideration, and in this case I estimate that I will be able to complete this consideration by 30 March. If it becomes apparent that I will be unable to meet this deadline I will let you know promptly.

If you think my decision to extend the deadline is wrong you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Thank you for explaining what you are doing. I do hope you will base your decision on disclosure of information on the protection and safety of the children of the UK rather than using legal loopholes to protect people who may be a danger to children.

Unfortunately, I am not yet in a position to finally conclude whether the information you have requested that the Commission holds can be disclosed.

I appreciate that the information that you have requested relates to issues that are important to you, and for that reason I want to fully explore all the legal issues surrounding this disclosure before I complete this review, to ensure that I can properly consider the legal position and whether the public interest lies in disclosing this information.

I therefore propose to extend the deadline again, to 27 April. I appreciate that this is a long extension, but I am on leave for two of those weeks. However, in light of the work I have already done on this matter I do not feel that it would be appropriate to hand the matter to someone else. I will endeavour to complete the review and let you have my final decision before that date.

As I mentioned in my last email, if you think my decision to extend the deadline is wrong you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at The Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

I feel quite shocked about the delay in providing this information, because I don't think I have asked for anything unreasonable, and feel strongly that this information is certainly in the public interest. I cannot see any reason why this information should be withheld, or that legal advice should be necessary.

Yours sincerely,

Barbara Richards

From: Louise Platt Charity Commission for England and Wales

30 March 2012

Thank you for your email.

I am out of the office on leave, returning on Monday 16th April. If your matter is urgent please contact Jane McGarry at [email address] or Elise Millington at [email address]

I am sorry that this decision review has taken much longer to deal with than was first anticipated. As I explained in my last email, if you consider that my decision to extend the deadline was unreasonable you can contact the Information Commissioner.

In my email that I sent you on 30 March, in which I explained why I would have to extend the deadline again, I said that I would complete the review by 27 April, which is Friday of this week. Given that you have had to wait a long time to receive the Commission's response to your request for a decision review, it is my priority to meet this deadline and I will contact you again as soon as possible this week and in any event by Friday with my response.

Thank you for your reply. I have already waited quite a long time for the information, and can certainly wait a few more days, I do have a lot of patience, us Pindown survivors do tend develop patience as a virtue, as we often have to have to wait a long time for answers and explainations for why were were treated so badly as children.

I am not on a witch hunt against the Charity Commission, I simply want to do my bit in keeping children safe in the UK. I just do not want any child to go through what I went through as a child.

Since posting this FOI I have discovered very clear links between the BFMS and the FMSF. Please, I do urge you, put aside your lawyers caution when responding to this request, and do what it right for the protection of the children of this country. I would never blame the Charity Commission for being decieved by bad people, but the thing to do now is to do what is right.

Yours sincerely,

Barbara Richards

Dear Ms Richards,

Please find attached a letter containing the Commission's final decision in relation to your request for information concerning the British False Memory Society.

I am aware that it has taken me quite a long time to carry out this review and I thank you for your patience.

Our Ref:104068313477351LP-LegalDate:27 April 2012Dear Ms RichardsFOl Decision Review - British False Memory SocietyThis letter sets out the final decision of the Charity Commission ("the Commission") on yourrequest for information about the British False Memory Society ("BFMS").I am one of the Commission's legal advisors and I have conducted this review on behalf of theCommission.IssueThe review of an initial decision by the Commission to withhold certain information under theFreedom of Information Act 2000 ("FOIA").BackgroundOn 13 January 2011 you wrote to the Commission about the BFMS and asked the Commission toprovide you with "the details of the people who applied for this organisation to receive charitablestatus and who granted it, plus the dates".On 31 January 2012 the Commission informed you that the organisation was registered on 9September 1994 and referred you to a link to the entry about the charity in the Central Register ofCharities on the Commission's website. The letter also stated that the Commission is unable toprovide details of the individuals involved with the original application as the information is personaldata of a third party and is therefore exempt from disclosure under s40(2) of the FOIA as to releasethe personal data would contravene the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998.On 22 February 2012 you wrote to the Commission to express your dissatisfaction with thedecision and explain why you consider it is in the public interest for the information to be disclosed.In particular you indicated in this letter that you were particularly concerned that an individual calledRalph Underwager may have been involved in setting up the BFMS.Information HeldDatesYou have already been informed of the date on which the BFMS was registered as a charity, whichis 9 September 1994.The Commission also holds the date on which the original Application Form for registration as acharity was signed, and the date on which the application was received by the CharityCommission.NamesThe Commission has a general policy to keep documents for only 5 years after they are receivedby the Commission and destroy them after that period. It is therefore unusual for us to holdinformation about the registration of a charity more than 5 years after it was registered. However,in this case we do still hold some information about the registration application.The Commission holds the name of the individual who signed the Application Form for registrationas a charity on behalf of the BFMS, the name of an individual who (along with the person whosubmitted the Application Form) signed an amended version of the constitution of BFMS on 1September 1994 (during the registration process), and the name of the member of Commissionstaff who sent the letter to the BFMS confirming that it had been registered as a charity.

The DecisionDatesI find that I agree with the decision to release to you the date on which the BFMS was registered asa charity. However, I consider that the Commission also holds more information about dates thatpotentially fall within the scope of your request. I find that the Commission should have releasedthe dates to you.I confirm that the Application Form for registration as a charity sent by the BFMS was signed on 11July 1994 and was received by the Commission on 19 July 1994.NamesBefore I set out my conclusions regarding the Commission's decision on this part of your request, Iwould like to address your particular concern relating to the involvement of an individual calledRalph Underwager in the application for the registration of the BFMS as a charity. I have looked atall the information the Commission holds about the registration of the BFMS as a charity, and I canconfirm that there is nothing in the information we hold which indicates that anyone by the name ofRalph Underwager was involved in the registration application.I find that the Commission's original decision to withhold the information we hold about the name ofthe individual who signed an amended version of the constitution and the name of the member ofCommission staff involved in the registration was correct. However, the decision to withhold thename of the individual who submitted the application for registration was not correct. I alsoconsider that the Commission should have given you more information about the number of namesthat we hold that fall within the scope of your request. I have set out this information above in thesection of this letter on "Information Held".Since you made your request for a decision review it has come to my attention that the individualwho signed the original Application Form for registration of the BFMS as a charity is nowdeceased. This impacts on the decision to withhold the information from you. This is because theinformation was originally withheld on the basis that to release it would breach the data protectionprinciples in the Data Protection Act 1998 ("DPA"). Where an individual is deceased their personaldata is no longer protected under the DPA.In this circumstance I can release to you the name of this individual. The trustee who signed theApplication Form for registration of BFMS as a charity is Denis Royston.I uphold the Commission's decision to withhold the name of the individual who signed theconstitution which was amended at the time of the registration and the name of the member ofCommission staff who signed the letter informing the BFMS that it had been registered as acharity.

This information constitutes personal data. It is personal data because it falls within the definitionset out in the DPA which is that it relates to a living person, and that person must be identifiable.Personal data is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOIA if disclosure wouldbreach one of the data protection principles set out in the DPA. If one of the data protectionprinciples are breached, then the exemption is absolute meaning that the Commission does nothave to go on to consider the public interest test.The first data principle is that personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully. The data isconsidered to be fairly processed if at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2 of the DataProtection Act is met.• The individuals concerned have not given consent to disclosure;• Disclosure is not necessary to perform a contract between the Commission and theindividual concerned or in order to enter into such a contract at the individual's request;• Disclosure is not necessary to comply with a legal obligation. Section 40(3)(b) explains thatthe general obligation to disclose under FOI is to be ignored in this analysis;• Disclosure is not necessary to protect the vital interests of the individual concerned;• Disclosure is not necessary for the administration of justice or for the discharge of theCommission's public functions.• Disclosure is not necessary for you to pursue your legitimate interests and it would be anunwarranted prejudice to the individual's rights.

I do not consider that in disclosing the personal data to you any of the conditions in Schedule 2would be satisfied and therefore it would be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 to provideyou with the information requested.I have given particular consideration to whether the name of the member of Commission staffshould be disclosed, and have concluded that it should not. The Information Commissioner'sOffice (ICO) has produced practical guidance on when names of staff should be released inresponse to a request for information. The guidance confirms that the main consideration iswhether it would be fair to identify an individual and this must be considered on a case by casebasis.The personal information relates to an employee of the Commission who was employed at the timeof the registration.I consider that the individual would not expect their name to be released in this way, in response toa request for information. The terms and conditions of the employment of Charity Commission staffprovide reassurance that personal information will not generally be given to third parties without thepermission of individuals. The individual has not consented to the release of the information and isno longer employed by the Commission so it would be difficult to obtain their consent. Given thatthe registration took place a number of years ago and the individual is no longer employed by theCommission, I consider the individual would have no expectation that their name might bedisclosed to the public in this context. However, the Commission does acknowledge that it cannotevade its responsibilities under the Act and it must consider whether disclosure is fair and lawful,whether permission is given or not.The ICO guidance recognises that the presumption is in favour of protecting privacy and release ofpersonal information is only fair if there is a genuine reason to disclose. Even if you have alegitimate interest to pursue, it is likely to prejudice the rights of the individual concerned to releasethe information to you. The individual may be subject to unwarranted attention and there is a risk ofdetriment to their privacy.I conclude that the Commission was right to withhold the names of the individual who signed theconstitution and the member of Commission staff who wrote the letter informing the BFMS that itwas registered as a charity.ConclusionI uphold the Commission's decision in part. I have found that some additional information shouldbe disclosed to you. This information is set out above.Next StepsIf you remain unhappy with this response you may apply directly to the Information Commissionerfor a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:The Information Commissioner's OfficeWycliffe HouseWater LaneWilmslowCheshireSK9 5AF• enquiriesAico.psi.gov.ukYours sincerelyMs Louise PlattLegal Services Division

I am a victim of the Staffordshire Pindown child abuse. I know I sound like a broken record keep pointing this out, but what I am trying to get at is that I don't have a massive team of legal experts to wade through all this legal jargon, I am just a woman who is struggling to survive the horrible abuse and malicious vindictive persecution I have been subjected to for years.

The Charity Commission is not fit for purpose. Charity is a Biblical term, its supposed to be about helping other people, kindness, alleviating suffering, that sort of thing.

WHAT THE BLINKING HECK ARE THEY PAYING LAWYERS TO AVOID ANSWERING AWKWARD QUESTIONS THAT A SURVIVOR OF INSTITUTIONAL CHILD ABUSE IS ASKING ABOUT A CHARITY THAT HAS BEEN SET UP BY A BUNCH OF CREEPS WHOSE SOLE OBJECTIVE IS TO DISCREDIT POLICE INVESTIGATIONS INTO INSTITUTIONAL CHILD ABUSE AND ATTACK AND BULLY VICTIMS OF INSTITUTIONAL CHILD ABUSE?

Lord McAlpine thinks he is hard done by. He wants to take a hike in my shoes, if he wants to know what true suffering is like.

I have had the Orees ganging up on me, for two years they viciously put the boot in, called me vile names, called me a man hating lesbian, because I exposed two horrible American perverts called Richard Gardner and Ralph Underwager.

The BBC has tried its best to cover up the Pindown child abuse scandal. Ceri Thomas sent one of his female drones to spy on me on this very blog, the snooping cow came creeping and sniffing round me, pretending to be wanting information about NAPAC, but it soon became crystal clear what she was really sniffing around for.

Ceri Thomas is the latest BBC cover up merchant, heaven knows why he is doing it, but none of them will succeed, this filth is never going to be swept under the carpet ever again.

May God forgive them, and that is a heartfelt prayer, because what they are doing is so evil, how are they going to avoid eternal damnation when the Lord comes to judge the quick and the dead, iunless they repent?